Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Antiboycott Act, the first major update and improvement of the 35-year-old law that prohibits U.S. persons and firms from cooperating with demands from the Arab League governments to refrain from doing business with Israel.

This legislation rectifies a long-standing weakness in the U.S. antiboycott policy: the lack of a permanent and legally-sound statutory provision to combat the Arab League's boycott, as well as any other boycott that might be imposed against other U.S. friends and allies in the future.

In 1977, in reaction to the Arab League's expansion of its boycott of Israel, Congress made it illegal for U.S. persons and companies to cooperate with secondary boycotts. It imposed civil and criminal penalties for violations. Those provisions were added to the Export Administration Act, EAA, of 1977 and the enforcement was assigned to what is now known as the Bureau of Industry and Security, which also administers our dual-use export controls. An office in that bureau is dedicated full-time to enforcing the antiboycott law and regulations.

However, in 1994, the EAA expired and, with the exception of one 12- month period in 2000-2001, the antiboycott law has been kept in effect by a series of Executive Orders issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, the President's emergency authority. The President's annual declaration of emergency for export controls and antiboycott describes the national emergency as the failure of Congress to act. This has been the situation for 16 of the past 17 years.

The use of IEEPA to continue the EAA--for both antiboycott and export controls--has been challenged in a series of lawsuits. Over the past decade, two of those lawsuits reached the federal appeals courts and were decided in the government's favor by split decisions. There is a risk that some day the government will lose.

The Arab League continues to try to pressure U.S. firms into cooperating with their boycott. In FY 2010 alone, U.S. firms reported 950 demands from governments to comply. The Bureau of Industry and Security counseled 1,020 U.S. firms on what their legal obligations are to resist. In FY 2010, BIS closed 14 cases against violators, up from 3 in the previous year. However, it is the preventive counseling, plus the threat of heavy penalties, that are deterring U.S. firms from complying with the secondary boycott.

The Antiboycott Act would provide a permanent and strengthened statute. It includes findings and a statement of U.S. policy that the President should take vigorous action to end both the primary and secondary Arab League boycott aimed at Israel.

In furtherance of those findings and policy, the bill would give the President the authority, for the first time since the original law was enacted in 1977, to restrict or prohibit U.S. firms from participating in the primary boycott, as well as reauthorizing the long-standing prohibition on cooperation with the secondary boycott. This would be an important new tool to use in seeking an end to the Arab League boycott.

This authority would apply to any other boycott that is imposed against U.S. friends and allies.

Finally, the bill would update the penalties under the antiboycott law to reflect the current civil and criminal penalties that are now temporarily applied to antiboycott violations under IEEPA. Civil fines are authorized up to $250,000 per violation. Authority is granted to cancel export licenses and to deny a violator's right to export from the U.S. Criminal violations, that is ``knowing'' violations, would be punished by fines up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison.

Ending the Arab League boycott of Israel is in the interest of the people of all Middle East and North African countries, in order to foster trade, investment, economic growth and peace. The Antiboycott Act is a contribution to achieving that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of an outstanding resident of the district I proudly represent, Gal Sitty. Mr. Sitty has worked hard to raise awareness of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit's plight and the ongoing effort to secure his release.

Mr. Sitty launched a successful effort to raise $10,000 for the placement of a billboard near the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The billboard featuring a picture of Gilad Shalit will ensure that the captured soldier is not forgotten. It also encourages UN leaders to assist in facilitating his release.

Mr. Sitty was motivated to undertake this effort because he understands that during the five years since Shalit's capture, Gilad and his family have been suffering and living a nightmare. Mr. Sitty's efforts have undoubtedly provided Gilad Shalit's family comfort because they know that the American people stand behind them ready to help.

I commend Mr. Sitty for his advocacy on Gilad Shalit's behalf and thank him for his outstanding efforts to keep the world focused on this tragedy. Mr. Sitty's hard work plays an important role in the effort to return Gilad home to his family.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following article published in the May 8th addition of the Jerusalem Post--``Angeleno Launches Drive for Shalit Billboard Near UN'', and I ask that it be published in the Congressional Record.

[From the Jerusalem Post, May 8, 2011]

Angeleno Launches Drive for Shalit Billboard Near UN

(By Debra Kamin)

June 25 of this year will mark five years in captivity for

Gilad Shalit, and one American is determined to make sure

that this anniversary does not go unnoticed.

Gal Sitty, a 28-year-old Los Angeles native, has started a

campaign on epicstep.com to fund and erect a billboard near

the Manhattan headquarters of the United Nations imploring

leaders to take steps to free the captive soldier.

``In [the past] five years I've gone to grad school, had

numerous jobs, spent many holidays with my family, had good

times with friends and so forth,'' Sitty said to The

Jerusalem Post when asked about his motivations. ``Meanwhile,

Gilad Shalit and his family have had none of that. They have

been suffering, living a nightmare.''

Epicstep was founded earlier this year by Lev Reys and

brothers Gene and Eugene Vekslar. The site works as a

fundraising platform for creating billboards--users choose

the issue they feel compelled to promote and supporters log

on and donate until the final cost, which varies per

billboard but for Sitty's campaign is $10,000, is reached.

Supporters' credit cards are not charged until the

fundraising goal is reached, so if the campaign to create a

billboard fails, no pledges are lost.

Sitty was born in Israel and raised in a Hebrew-speaking

home. He is quick to admit that this is an issue that is

close to his heart. ``The recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation

agreement makes no mention of Gilad Shalit. This means that

Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are now complicit in this

crime,'' he said. ``I think getting this billboard up keeps

the pressure on . . . leaders of the world to not overlook

this human tragedy.''

Sitty, who holds a master's degree in public policy, still

lives in Los Angeles, where he works as a researcher for the

Broad Foundation. He selected New York City as the site for

his billboard, however, because he believes that no one needs

to hear his message more than the delegates at the United

Nations.

``Soon the world's diplomats will be assembling at the UN

to discuss recognition of a Palestinian state and it is very

important that we remind them of Shalit so that the whole

world does not become complicit in such crimes,'' he said.

``If the UN endorses a Palestinian state with Hamas in the

government, then the UN indirectly endorses crimes against

humanity and puts many more at risk of being kidnapped by

terrorist organizations. We cannot allow this to happen.''

What the actual impact of a placard bearing Shalit's face

will be remains to be seen. But Sitty is pragmatic when he

describes his motivations. ``I know that I don't have the

power to actually free him,'' he said of Shalit, ``but by

getting this billboard up I think it keeps the pressure on

the policy makers.'' And while Gilad will not know about the

campaign, Sitty is also eager to help two other important

figures--Noam and Aviva Shalit.

``I hope that many people, Israelis and non-Israelis, Jews

and non-Jews, from all over the world contribute to this

campaign and show the Shalit family that we haven't forgotten

them, haven't forgotten their son, and will never forget

about their suffering,'' Sitty said. ``We will continue to

stand beside them and do whatever we can to help them.''

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to engage Mr. Dicks in a colloquy regarding an important area of funding for the Department of Defense.

For more than a decade, the Department of Defense has funded programs to support established university programs that promote region-wide informal conferences and task forces on arms control, regional security, and related topics to the Middle East for Arab, Israeli, and other officials and experts.

These programs serve an important national security objective-- fostering an alternative means of dialogue and engagement in an area of unparalleled significance to the United States. I know of one such program in Los Angeles, and I urge the Department to continue funding such programs.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for his thoughts on this issue.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Michaud

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 268, the Cantor-Hoyer resolution, and I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I believe negotiations are the only path to a two- state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For this reason, the United States Congress has every reason to be concerned about efforts by the Palestinian Authority leadership to attain recognition of statehood while bypassing the accepted negotiation process. These efforts run counter to the Palestinians' own internationally witnessed commitments at the 1991 Madrid Conference and under the 1993 Oslo agreement and the 2003 Roadmap.

That is but one reason I am deeply disappointed by the Palestinian leadership's recent push to seek recognition of an independent state at the United Nations. Indeed, even some Palestinian officials have acknowledged that such U.N. recognition of statehood gives the Palestinians nothing but an empty symbolic victory.

One thing is clear: There will be no recognition of Palestinian statehood by the Security Council, where I feel confident that the United States would use its veto, just as it has in the past, to prevent the passage of an unbalanced, anti-Israel resolution.

And what exactly would the U.N. General Assembly recognition of a Palestinian state do for the Palestinians? Absolutely nothing. It would not solve the Palestinians' need for recognized borders nor would it solve sensitive issues like the status of Jerusalem, water rights, or Palestinian refugees.

It would not enhance their prospect for successful negotiations. In fact, it would be seen by Israel and many others as an act of bad faith, creating yet another obstacle to successful talks.

As President Obama said in May, ``For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state.'' A glance at recent history shows that he's right. In 1988, Yasser Arafat declared a state and garnered recognition from more than 100 nations. Now, 23 years later, there is still no Palestinian state. The Palestinian people don't want a bunch of declarations of statehood; they want a state--and they should have one through the only means possible for attaining one, negotiations with Israel.

I believe that Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are committed to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel. So I hope they will return to the negotiating table and abandon their flawed U.N. strategy.

The Congress has been very generous in its support of the Palestinian Authority's worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy in the West Bank. In fact, I believe we are the most generous nation in the world in that regard. So I think our Palestinian friends should understand that if they persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, inevitably, and however regrettably, there will be consequences for U.S.-Palestinian relationships.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important pro-negotiations, pro-peace resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and partner in so many of these efforts, the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.

Madam Speaker, may I ask for the time remaining on each side.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Deutch.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our committee, the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Green.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the committee, the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There are two important issues raised by this one resolution. One seems a little more distant than it did at the time it was introduced, and that was the possibility of a unity government that included an organization that is on our terrorist list, that subscribes to violence, to the elimination of the State of Israel, and refuses to recognize past agreements in a unity government. Hopefully, that agreement, the chances of it are diminishing.

The second point is a strategy which violates the Palestinians' own commitments that they made in Madrid, that they made part of the roadmap, that were made in the context of the Oslo agreements that they will negotiate directly with the Israelis to resolve this conflict. I think it is all appropriate to point out that should they pursue that course, the assistance that we have very generously given them, that they have put to good use, might well be terminated.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I will be the only speaker to speak from our side on this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. On December 19 of last year, Belarus' President, Alexander Lukashenko, staged a fraudulent election. Immediately afterward, he had the opposition candidates arrested, and this May almost all of them were sentenced to prison.

The Lukashenko regime has continued to harass members of opposition political parties, human rights activists, civil society and to suppress Belarusians' access to free press and information. Over the past month, an increasing number of Belarusians have gathered to protest against Lukashenko and the deteriorating economic situation there.

The Obama administration has reacted strongly to the fraudulent elections and post-election crack down. On February 2, the U.S. significantly expanded the list of Belarusian officials subject to travel sanctions and to have their assets blocked and restored full

U.S. sanctions against Belarus's largest state-owned oil and gas concern.

On July 2, Secretary Clinton met with activists from Belarus during her visit to Lithuania for a meeting of the Community of Democracies and repeated her demand that Belarus release political prisoners and embark on the path of democratic reform. In coordination with the European Union, the administration has significantly expanded democracy assistance to Belarus for this year from $11 million to $15 million.

We must continue to call for the reopening of the OSCE office in Minsk and for the Government of Belarus to fully cooperate with an OSCE fact-finding mission requested by 14 participating states under the Moscow mechanism.

And we must continue to demand the release of many heroic individuals still languishing in Belarusian prisons without access to their families or legal counsel. Europe's last dictatorship should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott.)

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman with the opposite view of this issue than I have, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, would you inform us as to the amount of time remaining on each side.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are 90 days into this operation, and the majority is bringing up this resolution in order to embarrass the White House. Let's just call it for what it is. They know it will fail. They want to continue to play games with U.S. national security.

Let's be honest about what's happening here. The Republican leadership allowed this resolution to come to the floor for one reason and one reason only: They know it will fail, and they think its defeat will be a political defeat for the White House. If that type of trifling and toying with national security appeals to them, so be it.

Mr. Speaker, I think our commitments to NATO and the humanitarian crisis that created the NATO operation in Libya are too important to be exploited for cynical political purposes. In my view, the perfect authorization would have been a 6-month authorization for a limited purpose with a limitation on that authorization with respect to a position the House has stood for the entire time, as has the President, and that is no boots on the ground.

But the Republicans didn't give this side the choice of the resolution for authorization. They told us what the resolution for authorization would be, and that's a very unfortunate kind of a situation. So we will go through this process. And perhaps, at the end of the day, after this resolution fails, we will get another letter to the House of Representatives sent to the Speaker thanking us from Colonel Qadhafi for once again demonstrating that we want to send a message that he is going to prevail in this conflict.

And when that happens, what do we think the dictator of Syria is going to think? Faced with the choice of change or quitting, he will hear the message: the way to survive, the way to hold onto power is for a despot to continue to kill his own people without the rest of the world doing anything.

There are critical alliances at stake. There are critical interests at stake. The national security question is far beyond simply what is going to happen in Libya, but in its neighbors, Egypt and Tunisia, throughout the Middle East and through the entire world, the message of trying to say that we're going to pull the plug on this particular operation.

And heaven knows, we could spend time talking about the way the administration has handled it; but right now

we have one choice, to pull the plug on this baby, or to let it play out in a limited and responsible fashion, to achieve our goals and send a message that the civilized world is not going to stand for this kind of barbarity and brutality.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the joint resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House has made some very legitimate points, but then his conclusion is so contrary to the points he made. The proposition before us today, Mr. McClintock is right, it is an authorization of a series of acts of belligerence, acts of war, that by their own definition cannot possibly help us either achieve the humanitarian goal of this mission or achieve the goal, the true humanitarian goal of removing Qadhafi from power.

We are authorizing intelligence-sharing, aerial refueling, operational planning, intelligence-gathering; but we are denying the only aspects of this operation that can allow us to achieve that goal-- the suppression of air defense systems and the utilization of drones with missiles to stop Qadhafi from resuming his effort to massacre his own people.

I understand the argument. You don't buy my notions of our national security interests. You don't see the context of bringing this operation to a halt in terms of what it does to the stability of the democracy movements in Egypt and Tunisia. You don't see any consequences in terms of Syria or the larger Middle East or the damage to alliance. I understand and accept that argument.

But Mr. Rooney tries to have it both ways and in fact comes up with a proposal that ensures that the mission is allowed to continue, but by definition cannot achieve its goals.

It is the worst. It is not the reasonable proposal. It is the worst of all solutions. If you're going to authorize an operation through airpower and other methods, you don't exclude the only parts that can possibly achieve success. If you're against this operation, you stop the funding of the operation.

Mr. Rooney and apparently a number of members of the majority want to have it both ways. We don't like Qadhafi so we want to do something. We don't want to do anything that could work, but we don't want to come out against the operation. But the fact is you're ending the operation if this were to become law, because our European friends have said very clearly that, Those parts of this operation that this amendment prohibits, those parts of the operation we cannot undertake if you are not doing it.

So why not be straightforward? Why not do what a number of colleagues on the other side have called for: stop funding the operation. Don't try to have it both ways, ensure the operation's defeat and end the operation, while pretending to still be interested in seeing Qadhafi go and the operation succeed.

I urge a ``no'' vote from anyone who cares about the consequences of what they vote on.

Offered By: Mr. Berman

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to Iran's ongoing efforts to assist the Syrian regime in violently suppressing peaceful protestors.

I submit the articles ``Iran Helping Syrian Regime Crack Down on Protestors, Say Diplomats,'' printed in the May 9, 2011, Guardian, and ``Iran Reportedly Aiding Syrian Crackdown,'' printed in the May 27, 2011, Washington Post.

Press reports indicate that Iran is playing an active role in helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad brutally crackdown on peaceful democracy protestors. As the Washington Post reports, ``Iran is dispatching increasing numbers of trainers and advisers--including members of its elite Quds Force--into Syria to help crush anti- government demonstrations that are threatening to topple Iran's most important ally in the region.''

Syrians have witnessed an increase in arrests, and door-to-door raids, similar to those that helped to crush Iran's Green Movement protests in 2009.

Human rights groups suggest that more than 7,000 people have been detained since the uprising began. And more than 1100 people are said to have died.

Mr. Speaker, Iran is terrified that it is about to lose its most important ally in the Arab world--they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. It appears that human life holds no value to the leaders in Damascus and Tehran.

I encourage all of my colleagues to read these articles and follow this development closely. The Congress must continue to put pressure on Syria and Iran so that freedom, respect for human rights and democracy can emerge in both nations.

[The Guardian, May 9, 2011]

Iran Helping Syrian Regime Crack Down on Protesters, Say Diplomats

Iran is playing an increasingly active role in helping the

Syrian regime in its crackdown on pro-democracy protesters,

according to western diplomatic sources in Damascus.

The claim came as Syria's security forces backed by tanks

intensified operations to suppress unrest in three new

flashpoint towns on Sunday and it was confirmed that four

women had been shot dead in the first use of force against an

all-female demonstration.

A senior western diplomat in Damascus expanded on

assertions, first made by White House officials last month,

that Iran is advising president Bashar al-Assad's government

on how to crush dissent.

The diplomat pointed to a ``significant'' increase in the

number of Iranian personnel in Syria since protests began in

mid-March. Mass arrests in door-to-door raids, similar to

those that helped to crush Iran's ``green revolution'' in

2009, have been stepped up in the past week.

Human rights groups suggest more than 7,000 people have

been detained since the uprising began. More than 800 people

are said to have died, up to 50 during last Friday's ``day of

defiance''. Last night two unarmed demonstrators were

reportedly killed during a night rally in the eastern city of

Deir al-Zor.

``Tehran has upped the level of technical support and

personnel support from the Iranian Republican Guard to

strengthen Syria's ability to deal with protesters,'' the

diplomat said, adding that the few hundred personnel were not

involved in any physical operations. ``Since the start of the

uprising, the Iranian regime has been worried about losing

its most important ally in the Arab world and important

conduit for weapons to Hezbollah [in Lebanon],'' the diplomat

said.

Last month White House officials made similar allegations

about Iranian assistance for the regime, particularly in

terms of intercepting or blocking internet, mobile phone and

social media communications between the protesters and the

outside world. But the officials did not provide hard

evidence to support their claims.

Activists and diplomats claim Iran's assistance includes

help to monitor internet communications such as Skype, widely

used by a network of activists, methods of crowd control, and

providing equipment such as batons and riot police helmets.

Syria has denied seeking or receiving assistance from Iran

to put down the unrest. In a statement issued on Friday,

Iran's foreign ministry stressed Syria's ``prime role'' in

opposing Israel and the U.S., and urged opposing forces in

the country to compromise on political reform. U.S. policy

towards Syria was based on ``opportunism in support of the

Zionist regime's avarice'', it said.

The Assad family, from the Shia Muslim minority Alawite

sect, is likely to be nervous about appearing to be helped by

its Shia-dominated ally to crush protesters drawn from the

75% Sunni population.

Regime forces backed by tanks were in action over the

weekend in Horns, in the town of Tafas north of Deraa, and in

the coastal city of Banias, activists said. Violence was also

reported in the Damascus dormitory town of Zabadani.

Along with arbitrary detentions, shootings have continued.

Razan Zeitouneh, a lawyer in the capital who is monitoring

the protests, said four women were shot dead in the village

of Merqeb, close to Banias, and six men were shot dead in

Banias on Saturday.

Iran Reportedly Aiding Syrian Crackdown

[From the Washington Post, May 27, 2011]

U.S. officials say Iran is dispatching increasing numbers

of trainers and advisers--including members of its elite Quds

Force--into Syria to help crush anti-government

demonstrations that are threatening to topple Iran's most

important ally in the region.

The influx of Iranian manpower is adding to a steady stream

of aid from Tehran that includes not only weapons and riot

gear but also sophisticated surveillance equipment that is

helping Syrian authorities track down opponents through their

Facebook and Twitter accounts, the sources said. Iranian-

assisted computer surveillance is believed to have led to the

arrests of hundreds of Syrians seized from their homes in

recent weeks.

The United States and its allies long have accused Iran of

supporting repressive or violent regimes in the region,

including Syria's government, the Hezbollah movement in

Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Many previous reports,

mostly provided by Western officials, have described Iranian

technical help in providing Syria with riot helmets, batons

and other implements of crowd control during 10 weeks of

demonstrations against President Bashar al-Assad.

The new assertions--provided by two U.S. officials and a

diplomat from an allied nation, all of whom spoke on the

condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence--

are clearly aimed at suggesting

deepening involvement of Iranian military personnel in

Syria's brutal crackdown against anti-Assad

demonstrators.There was no response on Friday to requests for

comment left with the Syrian Embassy and Iranian interests

section in Washington.

In the account provided by the diplomat and the U.S.

officials, the Iranian military trainers were being brought

to Damascus to instruct Syrians in techniques Iran used

against the nation's ``Green Movement'' in 2009, the diplomat

said. The Iranians were brutally effective in crushing those

protests.

Officers from Iran's notorious Quds Force have played a key

role in Syria's crackdown since at least mid-April, said the

U.S. and allied officials. They said U.S. sanctions imposed

against the Quds Force in April were implicitly intended as a

warning to Iran to halt the practice.

The Quds Force is a unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary

Guard Corps responsible for operations outside the country.

It has helped fund and train Hezbollah and Hamas militants

and supported anti-U.S. insurgents inside Iraq.

While the size of the Iranian contingent in Syria is not

known, the numbers of advisers has grown steadily in recent

weeks despite U.S. warnings, according to the U.S. and allied

officials.

The Obama administration mentioned the role of the Quds

Forces in announcing two sets of sanctions imposed against

Syrian government officials in the past month. A White House

executive order last week that targeted Assad and six other

top government officials also included a little-noticed

reference to Mohsen Chizari, an Iranian military officer who

is the No. 3 leader in the Quds Force in charge of training.

The naming of Chizari--who in 2006 was arrested but later

released by U.S. forces in Iraq for allegedly supplying arms

to insurgents there--suggests that officials possess evidence

of his role in assisting Syria's crackdown on protesters,

said Michael Singh, a former senior director for Middle East

affairs for the National Security Council during George W.

Bush's administration.

``There's a deeply integrated relationship here that

involves not only support for terrorism but a whole gamut of

activities to ensure Assad's survival,'' Singh said.

It is not unusual for governments to draw on foreign

assistance during times of unrest, as Western-allied

governments in Bahrain and Egypt did when protests were

building in those countries.

Iran's increasing engagement in the Syrian crackdown

reflects anxiety in Tehran about the prospects for Assad, who

has failed to end the protests despite rising brutality that

human rights groups say has left more than 800 people dead

and perhaps 10,000 in prison. While managing to hold on to

power, Assad has been severely weakened after months of

Syrian unrest, according to current and former U.S. officials

and Middle East experts.

``Iran is focused intently on how things are evolving in

Syria,'' said Mona Yacoubian, a former Middle East expert

with the State Department's intelligence division and who is

a special adviser to the U.S. Institute of Peace. ``The two

countries have a long-standing alliance of 30 years-plus.

Syria is Iran's most important inroad into the Arab world,

and its perch on the front line with Israel.''

Assad, whose army is stretched across dozens of cities in

an unprecedented domestic deployment, increasingly needs help

to survive, Yacoubian said. And Iran desperately needs Assad.

``If they lose the Syrian regime, it would constitute a huge

setback,'' Yacoubian said.

Iran, a longtime supplier of military aid to Syria, has

been helping Dasmascus battle the current wave of civil

unrest since at least mid-March, said the U.S. and allied

officials. The emergence of Syria's first true mass

protests--with tens of thousands of demonstrators pouring

into the streets demanding Assad's ouster--initially

flummoxed the country's security leaders, who had little

experience with such phenomena.

On March 23, Turkish officials seized light weapons--

including assault rifles and grenade launchers--on an Iranian

cargo plane bound for Syria. Whether the shipment was

intended to help suppress the uprising is unclear, but around

the same time, Syria received other Iranian shipments that

included riot control gear and computer equipment for

Internet surveillance, the U.S. and allied sources said.

Just before the shipments, Assad announced with great

fanfare that he was lifting the country's ban on the use of

social media such as Facebook and YouTube. While widely

hailed at the time, the move gave Assad's security police an

Iranian-inspired tool for tracking down leaders of the

protest movement, said Andrew Tabler, a former Syria-based

journalist who is a Syria expert at the Washington Institute

for Near East Policy.

``Lifting the ban on Facebook helped the regime pinpoint

where the [activists] were coming from,'' Tabler said in an

phone interview from Lebanon, where he remains in contact

with opposition figures. ``It was not about being

magnanimous; it was a way to allow more surveillance, leading

to thousands of arrests.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

If the Members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's one-Chamber resolution, it should add one finding: that we declare ourselves to be one big constitutionally created potted plant.

This resolution casts all kinds of aspersions on the President. It states the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale for operations in Libya. It implies that there has been a withholding of documents and information from this body.

Could the President provide more information to the Congress? Of course. But we need to look not just at the President's failure to seek an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its authority in this area. The onus rests with us to recognize the sacred duty of authorizing the use of force.

A resolution like this, with no operative language, with no invocation of the War Powers Resolution and which was presented to Members for the first time just 14 hours ago, simply perpetuates a dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence that, for the most part, has gone on truly since the Korean War.

There are two choices here. If the majority thinks that the President's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were wrong or that current operations in Libya do not have a compelling national security rationale, it should support Mr. Kucinich's approach and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution requiring the removal of U.S. forces.

If the majority has concerns with Mr. Kucinich's approach, as many of us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave consequences for U.S. national security, it should simply authorize the use of force in Libya, incorporating the restrictions on ground forces that this resolution has, that the Conyers language in the DOD bill had. I would gladly join the Speaker in cosponsoring such an authorization of the limited use of force.

But pursuing a nonbinding House Resolution that takes potshots at the President and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the Congress is just an exercise in political gamesmanship. It is a pedantic effort to embarrass the President without taking any ownership for the policy of the intervention.

The majority, not the President, puts this body in a position of powerlessness through such toothless efforts. We are 60 days into this operation. Either we should authorize this action or terminate, not play around with reporting requirements.

The resolution is also confusing. It states that the President shall not deploy or maintain the presence of U.S. military units on the ground in Libya.

But as the majority well knows, U.S. military activities are limited to air operations and nothing more. So does this language mean the majority is okay with the current intervention in Libya? The majority seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House. That's not the way to legislate.

Finally, I object to the resolution because it is downright inaccurate. The resolution implies that there is no compelling national security rationale for operations in Libya. But U.S. interests are clear. They have been forcefully articulated by the administration and, ironically, by conservative advocates like Bill Kristol.

We are in Libya because we are averting a probable massacre against civilians. We are in Libya because our NATO partners need our help. Refusal to act there would send a message to NATO allies, who are putting their forces on the line in Afghanistan, that we are not a dependable partner. We are in Libya because our friends struggling for democracy in the Middle East are watching events there. If we failed to act, or worse, seek withdrawal today, what will we be saying to the activists in Tunisia and Egypt, whose fragile movements for democracy could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a Qadhafi-led government remaining in power? And what message would we be sending to Assad and to other dictators and enemies about our staying power?

Let's not kid ourselves. A Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. We know Qadhafi's record of bloodshed, and we know his readiness to use terror, especially now that he has nothing to lose. I cannot think of a more compelling rationale for current operations in Libya.

I object to the characterization that U.S. national security interests and humanitarian objectives are incompatible. In Libya, it is quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very much correspond with U.S. national interests.

The Republican sponsors of this resolution are trying to have it both ways. They want to criticize the President for taking the very action that many of them called for 3 months ago. And

they want to do so without taking any responsibility. In the process, they are offering nothing but criticism, obstruction and endless second-guessing.

President Bush once accused the Democratic Party of becoming ``the party of cut and run.'' Well, it seems the running shoe is now on the other foot. It is a Democratic President that is taking on a brutal tyrant, and it is the Republican Party that refuses to back him.

I urge my colleagues to take seriously U.S. military involvement in Libya and vote ``no'' on this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it's important to get the record straight on what we're doing and what we're not doing. ``No boots on the ground'' did not come because of this resolution we are considering now. This was the decision of the President, the Commander in Chief, at the time. But the figures given by my friend from Indiana don't reflect the reality of our participation.

What are we doing now? While we're not in the lead, the United States is contributing significantly to the operation: fighter aircraft for the suppression of enemy air defense, ISR aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, one guided missile destroyer and predatory armed unmanned aerial surveillance systems. Twenty-four percent, not two-thirds of the total aircraft; 27 percent of the total sorties flown; over 75 percent of all refueling sorties; 70 percent of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.

Now there's no boots on the ground, but to me that involvement implicates the War Powers Resolution. This is within the meaning of that bill. And, once again, only Kucinich has before us a proposal that seeks to deal with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

I just think we should get the record straight about what our involvement is. It's not as large as the previous speaker said, but it is significant. And in my opinion, it's within the terms of the War Powers Resolution.

I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to respond to my friend's arguments. I agree with every word he said except that this is a manifestation of the Congress exercising its authority. This is an abdication of Congress exercising its authority, because nowhere in this resolution is the authorization for the operations that we want to authorize, that we should be authorizing if we think they are appropriate.

The gentleman from Ohio doesn't think they are appropriate. Some of us do think it is appropriate, and this isn't about buying time. We are not a supplicant to go to the executive branch and ask for them to request of us authorization. We have the institutional power to decide what to do, and this resolution fails to take that option.

I think the gentleman makes a wonderful case for why this resolution is not sufficient to step up to our responsibilities under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in response to the previous speaker.

What I'm curious about is what the resolution doesn't tell us. If the President doesn't provide us the information within 14 days, what are we doing? The resolution is silent. This is a resolution filled with things we want and are asking for and demanding and are harumphing about with no consequences.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), former member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just listened to my chairman--I am very fond of her--make a very compelling case for the national security interests we have in seeing through this operation that is now going on against Qadhafi and Libya.

In detail, with specifics, I completely support it. The only thing I didn't hear was, ``Mr. President, while you didn't consult with us enough and you haven't provided us all the information, I want to thank you, as our President and our Commander in Chief, for pursuing America's national security interests in this current operation. Great job, keep it going, be a little better on the information, a little more on the consulting, but stick with it.'' That's what I didn't hear.

I want to compliment Mr. Kucinich for offering this resolution. We disagree on the President's policy. My colleague wants to withdraw forces, while I support the ongoing operations in Libya. But unlike the majority, Mr. Kucinich is taking seriously this body's fundamental responsibility to legislate on the use of force.

The President commenced combat operations in Libya to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, a massacre at the hands of Qadhafi's forces. There was bipartisan support for this effort and the President prevented massive loss of life through the decisive use of force. We don't have to speculate about that. Qadhafi told the entire world about his plans for Benghazi, to go door to door, closet to closet to find and eliminate his opponents.

I continue to believe the mission in Libya is relevant and necessary, as does my chairman and as does the Speaker, and I believe it's achieving success. Qadhafi's forces have been driven out of eastern Libya and out of Misrata in the west. High-level defections are on the increase. Demonstrations are once again breaking out in Tripoli, suggesting a weakening of government control. Progress is slower than we would like, but it is steady.

Efforts to force a withdrawal of forces would reverse this process and

jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of Libyans now benefiting from the NATO operation. And this resolution demands not merely withdrawal; it demands withdrawal within 15 days.

Think about what a removal in 15 days, as required by this resolution, would mean. We would be giving Qadhafi a free hand to maintain control in Libya and continue his campaign against civilians. We would be thumbing our nose at our NATO partners whose support on the ground has been and continues to be so crucial in Afghanistan.

We would likely threaten the stability for the very Arab nations where democracy has its best hope of success: Egypt and Tunisia, each of which flank Libya and are inevitably affected by its internal developments. And we would send a message to Assad of Syria and dictators everywhere that our support for freedom and humane governance is, at best, lukewarm and transitory: Hang in there for a few weeks, Mr. Dictator, and we'll go away.

And as the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 know better than any of us, a Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. He might even reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.

We need to give the President more time to pursue this mission. To do otherwise would be to alienate our allies, to damage our regional interests, and, once again, to invite a horrible massacre of Libyan civilians.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I inquire of the amount of time remaining for all of the managers.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing our time in the debate, I would take up Mr. Kucinich's comments.

If you think there has been an inappropriate abuse of power here, voting for the Boehner resolution does not cure that. But the Constitution doesn't say the President must come to Congress and get a declaration of war. It says Congress must declare war.

I agree very much with the thinking of my friend, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers, that there are national security issues involved here as well as humanitarian issues, and that's why I oppose Kucinich. But the notion that the President has to come to Congress when Congress has the authority to address this issue directly through a declaration or through an authorization or a limited authorization is the right way to do it.

I urge a ``no'' vote on both the Boehner amendment and the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment to strike section 1034 from the bill. Let's be clear what we are debating here today: the bill before us would amend the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks--not just reaffirm the existing authorization.

As a threshold matter, I question the premise for this amendment. Proponents argue that Congress needs to act now lest a court change its interpretation of the AUMF. Proponents also argue that the President has been hamstrung in his ability to detain and target groups linked to al Qaeda, like al Qaida in the Peninsula (AQAP).

Yet Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson made clear in public testimony that DoD has all the authority it needs to fight terror. And I've seen no evidence that the Administration feels any restraints on its ability to target threats like AQAP. In fact, the White House stated yesterday it ``strongly objects'' to section 1034. If the Administration, which stands to benefit most from the proposed amendment to the AUMF, is arguing against it, I have serious doubts we should proceed.

I support efforts to update the AUMF of 2001. The AUMF should reflect the diffuse terrorist threat faced by the US today and clarify that the President has the authority to target groups closely linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban that came into being after 9/11 and that pose a direct threat to the United States. We should also update it as a matter of congressional prerogative. Congress should take ownership of the AUMF rather than let the courts and the Executive interpret the 2001 legislation unilaterally.

At some point, congressional failure to update the AUMF could force the President to rely on his Article II authority to target entities increasingly removed from 9/11.

But this provision in the NDAA is no way to do it.

Sec. 1034 was advanced with no hearings in the Foreign Affairs Committee--the principal committee of jurisdiction--and with only a passing mention in an Armed Services Committee hearing.

There's been no floor debate beyond this amendment, and no opportunity for the Administration or outside experts to weigh in.

This is not the way Congress should authorize an expansion of the President's authority to use force.

And make no mistake: that's exactly what we're doing here, even if the proposed authority is consistent with how courts have interpreted the original AUMF.

The 2001 AUMF makes no reference to associated forces, nor does it authorize the President to attack nations, organizations, and persons who are substantially supporting al Qaida or the Taliban.

We need to examine these provisions closely, some of which could have unintended consequences and which remain cutting edge legal theories. For example, Sec. 1034 authorizes the President to use force against ``nations who are substantially supporting the Taliban''.

Would that allow the President to use force against Pakistan or Iran if they were providing material support to the Taliban?

That isn't what I signed up for when I voted to authorize the President to attack those responsible for 9/11 in the original AUMF.

With adequate due diligence, I would support giving the President authority to target so-called ``associated forces''. Indeed, the concept of co-belligerency is one well-founded in the laws of war, at least against nations. I could even envision authorizing the detention and targeting of those substantially supporting al Qaeda, as the McKeon provision suggests.

But there should be limits to these authorities. We need to ensure a sufficient link between an associated force and the Taliban or al Qaeda, and that such a group is hostile to the United States. We also need to make sure there are clear ways to determine whether an entity is ``substantially supporting'' al Qaida. At a minimum, I would urge my colleagues to place a time limit on such authorities. I want to make sure we are not extending a war--something Jihadists might welcome--at the exact time when we should be narrowly focusing our counterterrorism efforts.

I tried to work with my colleagues to find a mutually agreeable text, one that would restrict the proposed text while addressing the proponents' interest in incorporating ``associated forces'' and detention authority into the 2001 AUMF.

Given the late hour, we could not reach a deal. But I remain willing to work with my counterparts across the aisle to find a mutually agreeable, bipartisan text.

Mr. Chairman, in light of the flawed language in Sec. 1034, and the equally flawed process, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike that section from the bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment to strike section 1034 from the bill. Let's be clear what we are debating here today: the bill before us would amend the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks--not just reaffirm the existing authorization.

As a threshold matter, I question the premise for this amendment. Proponents argue that Congress needs to act now lest a court change its interpretation of the AUMF. Proponents also argue that the President has been hamstrung in his ability to detain and target groups linked to al Qaeda, like al Qaida in the Peninsula (AQAP).

Yet Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson made clear in public testimony that DoD has all the authority it needs to fight terror. And I've seen no evidence that the Administration feels any restraints on its ability to target threats like AQAP. In fact, the White House stated yesterday it ``strongly objects'' to section 1034. If the Administration, which stands to benefit most from the proposed amendment to the AUMF, is arguing against it, I have serious doubts we should proceed.

I support efforts to update the AUMF of 2001. The AUMF should reflect the diffuse terrorist threat faced by the US today and clarify that the President has the authority to target

groups closely linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban that came into being after 9/11 and that pose a direct threat to the United States. We should also update it as a matter of congressional prerogative. Congress should take ownership of the AUMF rather than let the courts and the Executive interpret the 2001 legislation unilaterally.

At some point, congressional failure to update the AUMF could force the President to rely on his Article II authority to target entities increasingly removed from 9/11.

But this provision in the NDAA is no way to do it.

Sec. 1034 was advanced with no hearings in the Foreign Affairs Committee--the principal committee of jurisdiction--and with only a passing mention in an Armed Services Committee hearing.

There's been no floor debate beyond this amendment, and no opportunity for the Administration or outside experts to weigh in.

I have to say it boggles my mind how we can argue one minute about whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or authorize the use of force in Libya and in the next minute seek to eliminate the one U.S. government institution that is dedicated to resolving such conflicts peacefully.

No other institution can accomplish the mission Congress gave the USIP. No other agency has this peace-building mandate. General Petraeus called USIP's work invaluable, a potential key to the success in the enormous challenge we face; Under Secretary of

Defense Flournoy, talking about one specific example in Iraq where ``The USIP helped tribal and local government leaders forge a groundbreaking agreement viewed by local leaders and military officials as a turning point toward peace and stability in one of Iraq's most violent regions.''

I fail to understand what national interests could possibly be served by reducing the number of tools at our disposal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 92, which would eliminate the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Mr. Chair, the law creating the U.S. Institute of Peace was passed by a Republican-controlled Senate and signed into law by President Reagan.

That law cited a ``deep public need for the Nation to develop fully a range of effective options, in addition to armed capacity, that can leash international violence and manage international conflict.''

Is there anyone here who doubts that we still need a range of effective alternatives to armed conflict?

It boggles my mind how we can argue one minute about whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or to authorize the use of force in Libya, and the next minute seek to eliminate the one U.S. government institution that is dedicated to resolving such conflicts peacefully.

The State Department, USAID and the Defense Department each have their own important roles to play in preventing and resolving conflict. But none of them have the capacity to do what the U.S. Institute of Peace does: working ``outside the wire'' with all parties to conflict; acting as a bridge between governmental and non-governmental actors; conducting cutting-edge research and developing innovative peacebuilding tools; and training soldiers, diplomats, and aid workers prior to deployment in conflict zones.

No other institution can accomplish the mission Congress gave to USIP. No other agency has this peacebuilding mandate.

Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy says that ``our long-term success in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as overall U.S. efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen peace-building globally, depend in part on USIP experts and programs in the field.''

She specifically cites an example in Iraq, where ``the USIP helped tribal and local government leaders forge a groundbreaking agreement, viewed by local leaders and military officials as ``a turning point'' toward peace and stability in one of Iraq's most violent regions.''

General Anthony Zinni writes in the New York Times, ``Congress would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does more with less. The institute's entire budget would not pay for the Afghan war for three hours, is less than the cost of a fighter plane, and wouldn't sustain even 40 American troops in Afghanistan for a year.''

General Petraeus calls USIP's work ``invaluable'' and a ``potential key to success in the enormous challenges we face.''

According to General Wesley Clark, ``Eliminating USIP funding is a jaw-dropping, backward step. Although other national security contributors can perform some of USIP's functions, none can perform them all in unity or has such convening power. More important, none can perform them as effectively.''

And the Deputy Commanding General of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan says, ``USIP is at the center of work on doctrine, interagency cooperation, military-NGO relations, and cutting edge efforts on rule of law, reconciliation, minority rights in conflict zones, and democratization--all at the heart of what the military needs to succeed in complex operations.''

Mr. Chair, I fail to understand what national interest could possibly be served by reducing the number of tools at our disposal for preventing and resolving conflicts without putting the lives of our troops on the line. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Representatives Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman and Henry A. Waxman, as we pay tribute to Dr. Robert Wexler who is being honored by the American Jewish University.

We know firsthand of his many outstanding contributions to our community. For 18 years, Bob has been the President of the American Jewish University, where students are offered an educational setting which embraces both the history of the Jewish heritage and the skills necessary to become leaders in society. During his time at the university, Bob's many accomplishments contributed greatly to the growth and prestigious reputation of the institution. In 2007, he led the merger between Brandeis Bardin Institute and the University of Judaism, creating the American Jewish University and making it one of the largest Jewish institutions in the United States. Bob is also responsible for the establishment of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at AJU, which is the first independent conservative rabbinical school in the west. Bob is also a founder of the Whizin Center for Continuing Education.

In addition to his distinguished work as the President of AJU, Bob has been deeply involved in many charitable organizations. He has generously given his time to many of the Los Angeles Federation's commissions and committees, and has been named to Newsweek's list of America's 50 most influential rabbis, as well as Forward's list of the 50 most significant American Jewish leaders.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join us in recognizing Dr. Robert Wexler for his invaluable service and dedication to the community.